MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399460283 · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2024.114406

Analysis of chemical exposures in racial populations in Canada: An investigation based on the Canadian health measures survey

2024· article· en· W4399460283 on OpenAlexaffabout
Subramanian Karthikeyan, Tyler Pollock, Mike Walker, Cheryl Khoury, Annie St-Amand

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite demonstrated disparities in environmental chemical exposures by racial identity, no Canadian study has systematically assessed the feasibility of using a nationally representative dataset to examine differences in chemical concentrations by race. We assessed the feasibility and constraints of analysing chemical exposures in racial populations, including visible minorities and populations of Indigenous identity, using biomonitoring data collected through the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Our primary objectives were to assess the ability to 1) generate geometric means and percentiles of chemical concentrations for racial populations by age or sex, 2) statistically compare concentrations among racial populations, and 3) calculate time trends of concentrations by race. We conducted these analyses for several priority chemicals: lead, cadmium, benzene, bisphenol A (BPA), and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). Survey participants self-identified as one of the following: White, Black, East and Southeast Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American, First Nations, Metis, and Inuit. Analyses were conducted for individual and combined cycles of the CHMS. Using data from the latest CHMS cycle in which each chemical was measured, we observed that sample sizes were sufficient to report geometric mean concentrations for all races except Inuit. Due to privacy considerations associated with small sample sizes, the 5th and 95th percentile concentrations could not be consistently reported for all racial populations in this analysis. While we were able to statistically compare concentrations among racial populations, the analysis was constrained by the limited number of statistical degrees of freedom available in a single CHMS cycle. Both of these constraints were alleviated by combining multiple cycles of data. The analysis of time trends was less subject to privacy and statistical limitations; we were able to calculate time trends of chemical concentrations for all racial populations. Our findings provide an important baseline for follow-up investigations of descriptive and etiological analyses of environmental chemical exposures and race in the CHMS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Hygiene and Environmental HealthSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207